But what church-based programs do is to distract attention from why New and Fair Deal and Great Society programs keep on proving less effective than churches in dealing with many dimensions of human needs.

Liberal programs are shaped around a conception of what is important in human life that emphasizes economic needs and political rights. I'm a liberal, and support those programs. And they've proved very effective when it comes to delivering "objective" caring-the elimination of discrimination, leveling the playing field for competition in the public arena (at least among middle class people, arguably less effectively between middle class and upper income people or corporations), and delivering badly needed economic supports for the poor. Liberals rightly argue that their programs are would be far more effective were they adequately funded, and that could happen if many people who today oppose taxes for social programs were to recognize the degree to which they, their parents and grandparents were themselves the beneficiaries of this kind of caring.

What liberals miss is that their government programs often lack any interest in fostering "subjective caring"-the experience of being cared for and about by those who deliver "objective caring." Over the course of the past 70 years, many people have come into contact with government employees (e.g. in the post office, the DMV, zoning and permit offices, INS, IRS, welfare and unemployment agencies,) where subjective caring is rather scarce. People often leave these encounters angry that their taxes are paying the salaries of disrespectful or emotionally deadened government employees whose one dimensional following of the rules often ignores the subtleties of human life. These encounters leave many people open to the "downsize government" strategy of the political Right.

Why not evaluate government programs and employees not only by their efficiency in delivering objective caring, but in how effective they are in conveying to the public the notion that government employees are there in part to provide a public manifestation of the caring and generosity that our neighbors feel for each other, but cannot do personally, and hence have agreed to fund programs that will show that caring?

The answers liberals give is that there is no "objective" way to measure caring, generosity, love, sensitivity to the needs of others-and hence that these are "soft" or "merely subjective" values that should be kept out of the public sphere. But this notion that anything of value must be capable of "objective measurement" is a prejudice closely associated with the scientism that leads many liberals to deride religion or other forms of spiritual consciousness. When I personally worked as a psychotherapist for poor people at a county health clinic, I found that the surround of bureaucratic regulations and focus on "productivity" quickly deadened the sensitivities of many of my co-workers, the brightest of whom quickly left government service.

What I found in my subsequent research as a psychologist is that many Americans are suffering by virtue of living in a society based on a "bottom line" of money and power, a bottom line that then generates narcissism, selfishness and materialism. There is a deep hunger for a sense of meaning and purpose in their lives, and for a sense of connection to others, and the major place that these needs are addressed is in their religious or spiritual communities.

I also observed that many people suffering from alcohol or drug abuse, a propensity for violence or crime, family breakdown, and other forms of distress find that the secular government-funded programs are afraid or actually feel legally banned from addressing these "meaning needs." It is only when those in need of help turn toward religious-based programs or the spirituality fostered in 12-step programs that they actually encounter people who understand the deepest level of their needs and can address them.

There is no "objective" reason why these needs could not be addressed in government-funded secular programs or by the government itself. Instead of funding churches and worrying about possible indoctrination, it would make more sense to recast government programs and our public education systems so that they were required to see others as "successful" not just as maximizers of material self-interest and gratifications, but as meaning- and love-oriented beings whose meaning needs could be addressed without invoking any particular religious tradition.

Senator Obama should be seeking to have government programs and employees be judged effective in part by the degree to which they speak to these "meaning" needs and convey genuine caring and love. Far from being a slippery slope toward breaking separation of church and state, this direction is the most effective way to head off the assault on government that gains many enthusiasts from among those who have experienced government programs as missing the key elements of their humanity.

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)